> On 7 Nov 2019, at 22:58, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > On 11/7/2019 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: >> On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote: >>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com <>> wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com <>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> The universe as a whole is determined in every detail, and random choice of >>> the observer in measuring a particle is not really a random choice. >>> >>> If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce. >>> >>> It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true randomness, but >>> only apparent randomness. If Many Worlds is wrong, then this may also be >>> wrong. Randomness in choice of measurement is required for the apparent >>> nonlocal effect when considering entangled particles. >>> -- >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> >>> >>> That's what Many Worlds implies. >>> >>> The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the wake of Sean >>> Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is a good scientific idea >>> (or the best idea, according to the author). >> >> Because it treats measurement as just another physical interaction of >> quantum systems obeying the same evolution equations as other interactions. >> >> But you can do that (viz. accept that people, and measuring instruments, and >> everything else are basically quantum mechanical) without adopting the "many >> worlds" philosophy. > > ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the probabilities > becomes actualized. MWI tries to avoid this by supposing that all > probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of becoming orthogonal subspaces. > There are some problems with this too, but I see the attraction. > > You can always find problems with any approach. What I particularly dislike > about MW advocates (like Sean Carroll) is that they are dishonest about the > number of assumptions they have to make to get the SWE to "fly". Particularly > over the preferred basis problem and Born rule. Zurek comes closer, and he > effectively dismisses the "other branches" as a convenient fiction. If these > other branches play no effective role in explaining our experience, then why > have them there?
How could some terms in a wave expansion disappear without assuming some non unitary collapse of some sort? There is no preferred basis, only personal basis to be able to interact locally in between us. Bruno > > Bruce > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ7z1jE6tVdfAjo71MO54sgWLOqPEfFWc7O8CO1hV5F4Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ7z1jE6tVdfAjo71MO54sgWLOqPEfFWc7O8CO1hV5F4Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/EAFA453A-088B-470E-B4DD-B4C0A143EC6E%40ulb.ac.be.
